- From: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 12:42:19 +0100
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, public-prov-wg@w3.org
Hi, Terms like "causal", "influence", "derivation", or "needs to have existed" are all a bit subjective, or at least, philosophers have struggled for hundreds of years to come up with satisfying objective definitions. There is some recent work on mathematical formalisms for causal models, see Pearl's "Causality" (2000) or Woodward's "Making things happen", and there is also lots of work on information flow in security, but all of this work makes some modeling assumptions about what it means for information to "flow". I (and more recently some other DB people) have also tried to adapt these ideas to provenance, but I'm not totally convinced it is the right way to go: http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.1429v1 I'd suggest not trying to define derivation per se but naming it as a relationship that can hold between IVPTs as judged by some observer/ perspective/account, whose criteria for judging this may be objective (e.g. using a mathematical theory of causality), legalistic (using defeasible / argumentation) or completely subjective (I know it when I see it). (The wiki seems to be not responding to me at the moment, I'll add this as a comment when it comes back) --James On Jun 9, 2011, at 7:37 AM, Graham Klyne wrote: > One might just delete the word "causal"? The real essence is > captured by "needs to have existed" IMO. > > #g > -- > > Luc Moreau wrote: >> Hi Graham, >> Thanks for the quote ;-) >> Paulo, during the life of the Incubator, repeatedly criticized the >> notion of "causal relationship". >> In what way is this causal? It's a bit like using the term >> "influence" discussed earlier. >> Regards, >> Luc >> On 08/06/11 18:47, Graham Klyne wrote: >>> I've added something based on OPM, which always made sense to me: >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation#Definition_adapted_by_Graham >>> >>> #g >>> -- >>> >>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> Another perspective on derivation: >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ >>>> ConceptDerivation#Definition_by_Luc >>>> >>>> Luc >>>> >>>> On 06/08/2011 10:33 AM, Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Paul and Daniel. >>>>> >>>>> On 06/08/2011 10:13 AM, Paul Groth wrote: >>>>>> Hi Luc, all: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it really necessary to go down this road of defining >>>>>> influence. I have this fear that we will never bottom out. >>>>> >>>>> Agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are certain concepts that need to be defined >>>>>> terminologically others may not. It depends on what are the >>>>>> core building blocks of the model are. >>>>> >>>>> I suppose we wouldn't want the standard model to be over- >>>>> constraining, to allow for many forms of derivations (in >>>>> physical, digital, conceptual contexts). >>>>> >>>>> So, what are the (minimum) properties that need to be satisfied >>>>> in order to qualify as a derivation? >>>>> >>>>> Luc >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul >>>>>> >>>>>> Luc Moreau wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Having identified a concept of Invariant View or Perspective >>>>>>> on Thing (IVPT), I'd like to go back >>>>>>> to the meaning of Derivation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Several of you indicated that Derivation expresses that one >>>>>>> IVPT was influenced by another IVPT. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Paolo has asked what does it mean to 'influence'? It's a good >>>>>>> question! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Will we be able to define a notion of influence that applies >>>>>>> for all things, >>>>>>> whether physical, digital, conceptual, or other? Should we go >>>>>>> down the road of >>>>>>> modelling influence in specific domains? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 27/05/11 20:34, Stephan Zednik wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On May 27, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Daniel Garijo wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Luc, all >>>>>>>>> In the example c2 is also a derivation of d2, and from my >>>>>>>>> point of view, >>>>>>>>> c2 could also be seen as a derivation from c1, since it is >>>>>>>>> the chart taken as reference >>>>>>>>> and corected in c2... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for your second question, I think that if we want to be >>>>>>>>> able to cover >>>>>>>>> provenance from resources, resources representations and >>>>>>>>> resources state >>>>>>>>> representation, a derivation must be able to refer to all of >>>>>>>>> them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What do you think? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From the existing example/scenario section on Derivation: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A derivation is a relation between two Resource State >>>>>>>> Representations that expresses that one RSR was influenced by >>>>>>>> the other RSR. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A agree that a derivation should be a relation between two >>>>>>>> like resource abstractions, and I agree with Daniel in that I >>>>>>>> am not sure we should limit it to RSR. I believe one >>>>>>>> Resource could be derived from another Resource, and same >>>>>>>> with Resource State. I also believe derivation covers a >>>>>>>> large spectrum of relationships - FRBR has covered some of >>>>>>>> this ground on the wide spectrum of different types of >>>>>>>> derivation so thankfully we do not have to start from >>>>>>>> scratch. Stories can be derived from other stores, editions >>>>>>>> of publications are derived from earlier editions, adaptions >>>>>>>> are derived works, translations are derived expressions, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suggest an quick overview of FRBR's conclusions on >>>>>>>> derivations to provide direction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I also agree with the suggestion that Version be a >>>>>>>> specialization / subtype of Derivation, as suggested in the >>>>>>>> Version section of the existing example/scenario. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --Stephan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> Daniel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2011/5/27 Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Over the last week, we debated the notion of resource >>>>>>>>> (PROV-ISSUE-1), >>>>>>>>> one of the concepts identified in the charter as core to a >>>>>>>>> provenance >>>>>>>>> data model. It would be good to discuss the notion of >>>>>>>>> derivation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we agree with the illustration of derivation [1]: >>>>>>>>> in the example, chart c1 is a derivation of data set d1. >>>>>>>>> Are there other interesting illustrations? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is derivation relating resources/resource representations/ >>>>>>>>> resource >>>>>>>>> representation states? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>>>>> Luc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/CharterConceptsIllustration >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 05/20/2011 08:07 AM, Provenance Working Group Issue >>>>>>>>> Tracker >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PROV-ISSUE-7 (define-derivation): Definition for >>>>>>>>> Concept >>>>>>>>> 'Derivation' [Provenance Terminology] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/track/issues/7 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Raised by: Luc Moreau >>>>>>>>> On product: Provenance Terminology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Provenance WG charter identifies the concept >>>>>>>>> 'Derivation' as a core concept of the provenance >>>>>>>>> interchange >>>>>>>>> language to be standardized (see >>>>>>>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/01/prov-wg-charter). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What term do we adopt for the concept 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>> How do we define the concept 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>> Where does concept 'Derivation' appear in >>>>>>>>> ProvenanceExample? >>>>>>>>> Which provenance query requires the concept >>>>>>>>> 'Derivation'? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wiki page: http://www.w3.org/2011/prov/wiki/ConceptDerivation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Professor Luc Moreau >>>>>>>>> Electronics and Computer Science tel: +44 23 8059 4487 >>>>>>>>> University of Southampton fax: +44 23 8059 2865 >>>>>>>>> Southampton SO17 1BJ email: >>>>>>>>> l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk <mailto:l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk> >>>>>>>>> United Kingdom http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm >>>>>>>>> <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Elavm> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> > > > -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Received on Thursday, 9 June 2011 11:43:04 UTC